‘Titanic’ Revelation: DiCaprio Nabs Starring Role in Private Financing of Government ‘Climate’ Lawsuits

From Government Accountability & Oversight


Is this among the millions that foundations are providing to a ‘contingency fee’ tort firm? Did tort firm disclose to politician clients? Did politicians disclose to legislatures and taxpayers?

In 2020, information surfaced in IRS Forms 990 filed by the non-profit Resources Legacy Fund (“RLF”) suggesting that the ‘climate nuisance’ and ‘consumer fraud’ lawsuits filed by Sher Edling, LLP on behalf of progressive attorneys general officials and local governments, were being privately financed to the tune of millions of dollars.

“Charitable grants” of millions of dollars to a plaintiff’s tort firm are certainly unusual. This was particularly curious given the politicians hired Sher Edling with contingency fee contracts promising them tens of millions in the event they prevail, because the governments couldn’t afford to pay the firm and the firm took the risk in making the investment in the cases unsure of a payday.

Deception may make for a good story on the big screen, but this new evidence raises some very troubling questions outside of Hollywood. Are well-heeled donors secretly funding government litigation by attorneys who are also seeking a second, multi-million dollar payday from the taxpayers?”

One law professor, Michael Krauss of George Mason University, raised questions about the arrangement, in Forbes.com. Indeed, if the money given to the law firm at the same time the lawsuits began being filed was for those lawsuits, then the non-profit obscured that fact with misleading language. The grants were officially reported as supporting “land or marine conservation” (2017) ($432,129), then as “advancing healthy communities” (2018) ($1,319,625) then, apparently having run out of euphemisms, as supporting “land or marine conservation, promotion of education and/or healthy communities” (2019) ($1.1 million).

Nonetheless, emails just obtained by Government Accountability & Oversight in open records litigation in California after a two-year legal battle at least confirm that private parties were in fact “serious supporters” underwriting the litigation (and presumably still are). These include Leonardo DiCaprio who, a review of his foundation’s IRS filings suggest, routed his group’s funding through at least one other organization.

So, Terry [Tamminen]’s group — at the time Tamminen was CEO of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation — and Dan Emmett are “strong supporters” of the Sher Edling litigation. And their colleague om several environmentalist enterprises, major Republican ‘green’ donor Andy Sabin was targeted to possibly help fund the assault, too.

It is possible that the “serious support” for “the nuisance litigation” was funneled into RLF’s $3 million that has so far been reported. However, Emmett’s foundation’s 990s (and his word choice) suggest this was personal money or, if it was from his own foundation, then that money too may have been routed through at least one other organization. Likely conduits for that latter task, from the various 990s, include Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and Sustainable Markets Foundation, even the University of California.

This new revelation raises further, serious ethical as well as public policy questions. Among them: what’s with the contingency fee pacts promising lawyers a substantial share of a claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed losses by the taxpayers in the plaintiff jurisdictions when the firm isn’t, in fact, taking the suggested risk/investing on its own lots of uncompensated time on a suit that may never pay? Do the clients and the taxpayers they represent know about this?

Notably, there is no indication from these records or other such correspondence obtained under open records laws that this “serious support” is litigation finance for a stake, just donors ponying up to finance the cases as a cause.

Consider Minnesota. There, the firm’s contract had to be approved by a Legislative Advisory Commission as a good government measure. The Minnesota AG’s contract with Sher Edling states, in toto, re compensation for the work:

6. COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES. Special Attorneys shall be compensated for the performance of their duties under this appointment and shall be reimbursed for certain costs and disbursements (together “costs”) in the manner set forth in the Fee Agreement which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

If the firm is being paid on the side from other sources, it is difficult to see how that fits within this representation.

Did the law firm disclose to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison that it was already being paid to conduct this litigation, when negotiating with his Office to take upwards of tens of millions of dollars from damages that Ellison claims Minnesota taxpayers have suffered?

That is, did the Commission know this when it approved the contract as a good-government watchdog? If not, possibly Professor Krauss could update his thoughts on these arrangements.

But if the firm did make this disclosure of the private financing for Minnesota’s litigation, then taxpayers (and the Legislative Advisory Commission) might wonder whether Ellison informed the Commission of the full financial arrangements when he sought approval for his Sher Edling contingency fee contract. Because that disclosure doesn’t appear in the materials released under Minnesota’s open records law (scroll about 70% of the way down).

Taxpayers in each plaintiff jurisdiction might have similar questions about disclosure, and the appearance of double-dipping under the arrangement.

Another concern arises from this most unusual of funding arrangements, by which millions are quietly being paid to underwrite the litigation even though millions have been promised to the firm to pay for the litigation, as a “risk premium”. This concurrent funding program suggests that the objective may not be to carry matters to successful trial or settlement; possibly, success is viewed as putting the targets through the costs of the litigation process itself and through the burdens of civil discovery.

“Making the process the punishment,” as the saying goes, in the form of terribly expensive legal and public relations battles (whose costs are paid by shareholders and consumers), and reputational damage, all while supporting the political movement to terminate the targeted industries.

Noting that DiCaprio’s Foundation website boasts of all manner of grants yet makes no mention of its “serious support” for financing the “climate nuisance” production which has managed to attain broad distribution, opening in dozens of venues across the country, GAO board member Matthew Hardin commented, “Deception may make for a good story on the big screen, but this new evidence raises some very troubling questions outside of Hollywood. Are well-heeled donors secretly funding government litigation by attorneys who are also seeking a second, multi-million dollar payday from the taxpayers?”

Thanks to records obtained only after two years of litigation in California, there are numerous, important questions calling out for answers. It is up to policymakers and media to demand them.

4.8 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 1, 2022 2:06 pm

those oil company stocks aren’t going to short themselves, you know!

May 1, 2022 2:36 pm

Well, this fills all the blanks as far as criminal conspiracy goes.

May 1, 2022 2:48 pm

So lawfare isn’t as righteous as we are led to believe? Who’d have thunk?

Rud Istvan
May 1, 2022 2:59 pm

As a now retired but well trained lawyer, a few technical observations about this:

  1. The public nuisance approach to climate lawfare has failed multiple times, even in California. The reason is simple. Tort law requires demonstrable ‘actual’ harm for damages, or ‘imminent’ harm for injunctive relief. The climate alarmists can demonstrate neither. And NEVER will. All their past ‘harm’ predictions have failed abjectly. The failure of summer Arctic ice to disappear has NOTHING to do with Oakland children living on San Fransisco Bay ‘public nuisance’ potential harm from future sea level rise, which hasn’t accelerated. (A real example of a California ‘public nuisance’ climate lawfare suit.)
  2. A contingent fee law firm takes on the litigation expense in the expectation they will win and get a disproportionate windfall return. Think the silicon breast implants junk science case against Dow Corning. If they don’t think they can win, they won’t ‘invest’ their partner’s time and opportunity cost.
  3. So if a supposed ‘contingent fee’ law firm is being secretly and (per tax code) illegally funded by non-profit NGO’s like DeCaprio’s foundation, then it isn’t really a contingent fee arrangement at all. The NGO’s are acting illegally per their tax free NGO status. And the law firm claiming otherwise is in a dark grey area including but not limited to being required by the clear rules of civil procedure to disclose WHO their represented clients actually are. Now, will Biden get the IRS to enforce? Probably not—but wait till after the 2024 election, when things will surely change. General statute of limitations for this sort of stuff is 5 years (which is why you should throw out any and all tax related stuff after 5 years). So if happening now, IRS still has a year and a half after 2024 to go after DeCaprio’s foundation (and DeCaprio personally, if he knew about it, which since it was his foundation, he presumptively did). Global climate ambassador, and all that.

Titanic image is apropos. The iceberg is facts and law, pretty solid stuff.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 2, 2022 6:19 pm

Barratry see my 5:49

Ken Menzies
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 3, 2022 8:54 am

Thank you Rud

May 1, 2022 3:11 pm

“DiCaprio Nabs Starring Role in Private Financing”

Funded by big celluloid

Gordon A. Dressler
May 1, 2022 3:59 pm

Here’s hoping when this “ship” of incestuous relationships between progressive attorneys general officials/local governments and private foundations goes down—as inevitably it must per the US Constitution*—that the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, like any good captain, goes down with it.

*Amendment 14, also known as the “Equal Protection Clause”, states among other things that:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So, offering wealthy citizens (even via their personal foundations) the private opportunity to fund litigation on behalf of governmental agencies without publicly offering that same opportunity to every US citizen is a clear violation of equal protection.

I, for one, have legal standing in this case because I have NEVER been offered, by my State’s Office of AG, an opportunity to personally fund legal suits on any matter pursued by the State.

How about you?

Last edited 1 year ago by ToldYouSo
william Johnston
May 1, 2022 4:41 pm

Media demanding answers from dems??? Dream on.

Old Man Winter
May 1, 2022 8:43 pm

(I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, & I haven’t stayed at a Holiday Inn)

The solution to most of our problems can be solved by getting rid of all the virtual entities- aka the
alphabet soup groups- as they’re just legal machinations created by liars- I mean lawyers- that give
those who can afford to buy them some advantage over their fellow citizen. If you can’t steam a
mirror, you would not have the rights a citizen has. Individuals within a group would get protection
from their own right as a citizen.

Since I”m not a lawyer, there may be a lot of flaws to my idea & I think it would be helpful for me to
find out what those are.

Last edited 1 year ago by Old Man Winter
May 1, 2022 8:48 pm

More lying and cheating everywhere you look.

May 1, 2022 10:10 pm

Tort reform requiring the loser in these frivolous lawsuits to pay the defense’s costs would end this nonsense. Or drastically reduce the number of lawsuits to only the well-funded zealots who don’t mind throwing money away. For them there should be a special “repeat offender” penalty. If they keep filing the same lawsuit after having lost it 2 or 3 times already, throw them in prison. 20 years should do it.

John the Econ
Reply to  stinkerp
May 3, 2022 2:29 pm

Agreed. And it will never happen. For obvious reasons.

Eric Vieira
May 2, 2022 12:41 am

Another person who thinks because he’s rich, that he can use his money to influence other people against their will. What would be nice, is that he loses in court, and then the oil companies sue him until he’s ruined!

Julian Flood
May 2, 2022 1:05 am

One of the arguments I use when advocating the fracking of the UK’s vast shale gas resources is that even in the USA, the most litigious society on Earth, there have been no prosecutions for damage caused by fracking. Is this still true?

The comeback is ‘Yes but they just buy people off’.


Ewin Barnett
May 2, 2022 4:52 am

More than two decades ago I was the CEO of an information technology firm buying data from state governments, which was openly sold. One state wanted to make use of my data so the selling official and I agreed to swap data for services. Some time later the Attorney General ruled that was illegal because it operated as an expenditure of that department that was outside of the budget approved by the legislature.. Upon reflection I understand and accept that logic.

Like with Zuckerbuck funding of election administration, we must never allow the private funding of any government function. It is an invitation to subvert political decision making and to substitute private agendas instead.

Last edited 1 year ago by ewinb
Ed Zuiderwijk
May 2, 2022 9:54 am

Leo diCaprio’s carbon footprint is 420T (2019). Yours is 10T.

Leo wants you to reduce your footprint.


Last edited 1 year ago by Ed Zuiderwijk
John the Econ
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 3, 2022 2:31 pm

I’ve always felt that as long as my carbon footprint is less than the mean between Leo diCaprio’s and Al Gore’s, I am the superior human being.

Walter Sobchak
May 2, 2022 5:49 pm

“Barratry is a legal term that, at common law, described a criminal offense committed by people who are overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation, or who bring repeated or persistent acts of litigation for the purposes of profit or harassment.”

Lock him up.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights